Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..............................................................................................................................
Canada's course
Re Freeland Questions U.S. Leadership, Says Canada Must Set Own Course (June 7): The Trudeau Liberals just caved in to President Donald Trump and gave him what he demanded.
Mr. Trump asked NATO members to increase their military spending to 2 per cent of their GDP, and the Liberals are heading in that direction.
Before speaking to Parliament, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland called her U.S. counterpart, Rex Tillerson – no doubt to explain how she was going to spin this to Canadians.
Then she gave a speech arguing that Canada has to be able to assert our sovereignty by force of arms. That's her rationale for surrendering to the dictates of the American President? To defend our sovereignty?
Many Canadians have been disappointed that Justin Trudeau has not delivered on his election promises for electoral reform or carbon emissions, but he's delivered for Mr. Trump at a tremendous cost not only for Canadian taxpayers – $62-billion – but for all Canadians who might have wanted pharmacare, affordable child care, affordable housing or free tuition. Many European countries can afford such programs – but they haven't surrendered to the Americans.
David Langille, Toronto
......................................
I have news for Chrystia Freeland: The "principled use of force" is an oxymoron. I assume that she will rely on the Ministry of Love to apply this "principle."
Peter Reid, Nanaimo, B.C.
......................................
If we truly want to set our own course, we need a small nuclear strike force. Would we ever use it? God forbid. But it would make rogue nations think twice before attacking our homeland.
It would be a lot less risky – and cheaper – than the current practice of sending Canadians all over the world to die in conflicts that Canada does not understand.
William King, Toronto
......................................
Trump's course
With all Donald Trump's talk about laggard countries not meeting some arbitrary defence spending as a percentage of GDP target, isn't it time someone pointed out some home truths to the persecuted President of the United States?
Wasn't it the U.S. that orchestrated the ill-advised invasion of Iraq based on specious, unsubstantiated intelligence? Didn't that sorry mess spawn IS? Aren't those European laggards already paying plenty for that blunder in terms of lives lost to terrorism, the blood of their citizenry, assistance provided to hundreds of thousands of refugees and billions spent on counterterrorism?
Surely Mr. Trump, ostensibly a shrewd businessman, must understand the "you break it, you pay for it" policy. It is time that he pays up and shuts up. And as for the U.S. backing away from its leadership role in world politics, we may be better off without it.
Neil Matheson, Victoria
......................................
No to Paris. So what?
I'm likely in the minority here, but I couldn't care less about the Paris climate accord.
Getting aggressive about energy efficiency has its own business case without considering climate change. But if that's not enough, breaking the dependency on fickle global markets (that set the price of oil) should be sufficient incentive to drive down carbon consumption.
At a policy level, simply raising building energy-codes and setting stringent fuel consumption regulations are not only very effective, but also a million times easier than getting Donald Trump to sign an emissions treaty.
Peter Reinecke, Chelsea, Que.
......................................
Justice under attack
Re Liberals To Update Sex-Assault Laws To Protect Complainants (June 7): The criminal justice system is under fundamental attack.
We are sitting on our hands as the protection of an accused is diminished and a category of complainant is elevated to "party status" in sexual-assault matters. This status, which is an unprecedented change to the trials as we know them, means complainants would have the right to be separately represented, have their own lawyers, other than Crown counsel, to argue against the admissibility of certain evidence.
In a time of efficiency and concern for protracted trials, this will be a real concern.
It is so unnecessary. An isolated number of judicial mistakes and the unique and misunderstood Jian Ghomeshi verdict have resulted in a tsunami of criticism leading to an erosion of the presumption of innocence.
There is no question that aspects of Bill C-51 require close and careful scrutiny before it becomes law. Moreover, there is also no question that sexual assault allegations require enhanced and careful Crown screening before charges are laid to avoid risk aversion which allows unsubstantiated and some clearly "unfounded" allegations to enter the system in the first place. This will hopefully avoid irreparable damage to the accused, the witnesses and the system of justice in this country, which is not perfect, but to this point emulated around the world.
William Trudell, chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
......................................
'Skeptical audience'
Re Federal Liberals Back Motion In Support Of Trans Mountain (June 7): On Tuesday, the House of Commons adopted a motion moved by Chilliwack-Hope MP Mark Strahl in support of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion project by a vote of 252-51.
The first point of the motion asserts that the project "has social licence to proceed." After the motion passed, Mr. Strahl called on Justin Trudeau to come to British Columbia to sell the merits of the project to a "skeptical audience."
Of course, if the project really had social licence, there would be no need for the Prime Minister to sell British Columbians on its merits.
Hamish Telford, Abbotsford, B.C.
......................................
Gerald Skinner cites "mail and goods" sent from B.C. to Eastern Canada prior to Confederation in his support for the federal government's position on sending bitumen through pipelines from Alberta to the West Coast (B.C. Vs. Alberta: A Showdown That Will Test Confederation, June 6).
Unlike bitumen, were the mail and goods to spill on the way to their destination, they would not cause wholesale environmental disaster, as well as irreparable economic damage. Mail and goods do not represent an unacceptable risk to the people of Alberta. Unfortunately for the people of B.C., bitumen does.
Nicholas Ribic, Vancouver
......................................
In your recent diagnosis of British Columbia's PRS (Pipeline Resistance Syndrome), The Globe and Mail found B.C. unresponsive to treatment (Folks, This Is no Way To Run A Country – editorial, June 5). Try balancing our PRS symptoms with those of Quebec's, vis-à-vis the Energy East pipeline. They are similar, at least superficially. They deserve equal attention.
Barry Kelsey, Sidney, B.C.